Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:53:41 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [CFT] UNIQUENAME patches Message-ID: <20120616145341.GK98264@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <4FDC9488.2010509@FreeBSD.org> References: <4FD8AFEC.6070605@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo83-Pr5Qqa6oUFKmfbLuuDOCiDQoiLVvjPfvJ1fT8ou0h9g@mail.gmail.com> <4FDC9488.2010509@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nzri8VXeXB/g5ayr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 03:13:28PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 16/06/2012 14:18, Chris Rees wrote:
> > That's great-- though rather than patching colliding-only ports, can't
> > we just add the category to it?
> >=20
> > .for cat in ${CATEGORIES}
> > UNIQUEPREFIX?=3D ${cat}
> > .endfor
> >=20
> > (copying the code from PKGCATEGORY; might be better off moving the
> > PKGCATEGORY code up higher and just using that).
>=20
> Yes. I thought long and hard about doing that, but I opted not to for
> two reasons:
>=20
> 1) Using the port name + a uniqueprefix where necessary produces what
> is close to the minimal change required to give every port a
> unique name. The UNIQUENAME won't actually change for quite a
> lot of ports under my scheme.
>=20
> 2) As a way of future-proofing against reorganizations of the ports
> tree. What tends to happen is that a new category is invented
> and a number of ports are moved into it. My way should avoid
> changing the UNIQUENAME in the majority of cases.
>=20
> Remember that changing the UNIQUENAME changes where the record of the
> port options are stored, and either we annoy a lot of users by making
> them fill in a buch of dialogues all over again, or we have to invent
> some complicated mechanism copy the old options settings to the new
> directory. (Yes -- this sort of thing will occur with the changes as
> written. It can't be avoided entirely.)
>=20
> Plus I think it would be more natural and easier for maintainers and
> end-users to talk about (say) "phpmyadmin" rather than
> "databases-phpmyadmin."
>=20
> Cheers,
>=20
> Matthew
>=20
> --=20
> Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.
> PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
I'm strongly against adding something related to the category automatically.
Because I'm thinking about binary managerment, adding PKGCATEGORY to unique=
name
would mean a package tracking will be lots in case of moving a port from a
category to another. Currently in pkgng a package is identified by its orig=
in
and thus can't survive automatically from a move, because origin changes.
Having a uniquename able to survive from move can help a lot avoiding compl=
ex
detection of move and keeping tracking easily the package.
What could be added is a UNIQUENAMESUFFIX to be able to have a finer grain =
name.
regards,
Bapt
--nzri8VXeXB/g5ayr
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAk/cnfUACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EzFCACfQBZ8swU6enG398wLxj1MylTO
dbcAn0kwDPTjPZ+gWQIs2b2Kme1VcxSy
=GmKs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nzri8VXeXB/g5ayr--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120616145341.GK98264>